Impeach The President Analysis

The senate as a possible remedy can, impeach the president. The constitution in Article 1 section 3 states: “The Senate will have the sole Power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or Affirmation. When the president of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person hall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present” (pg. I). The president is almost done with his term, but they can impeach him for placing Garland, but it would be a waste of time. It would be a waste of time because during the process the president would probably done with his term. Further it I very ironic that if they would attempt to impeach him the Chief Justice, who would be …show more content…
This is why the framers wanted a unitary executive because of the beneficial values it would offer (422). These values allow for it to be the adequate branch to appoint, in absence of congress. The branch that takes care of the execution of all laws (pg.410). The President was given its power through article 2, where it entrusts his judgment. Then, it is nothing but obvious that the constitution, gives the president, by text and structure the promise to the values that should result from the presidents role (pg. 423). Senate is taking away the entrusted judgment given the the president by the constitution. Further, the Senate is not allowing for the virtues so wanted for an efficient government and execution of laws. The senate is therefore ruining the chance for the president to fulfill their purpose in government, given to them by the constitution. Another goal of the unitary executive is to avoid factions, which is important because how can the president fulfill its constitutional obligations when they are obstructed (pg.423). With the unitary executive placed as a significant value, we have the want of an efficient …show more content…
Making this problem more practical is important, since we are dealing with a political issue that lacks justiciability. A pragmatist approach can also work with the fact that the constitution has to work in a practical sense, meaning that congress can’t just ignore its obligations. An originalists’ approach would fail because of the fact that this was unprecedented for. Additionally, an originalist would possibly just allow them to figure it out for themselves because advice and consent would be interpreted in a way as it would be at the time it was written (pg. 140). Further, they would see at something congress should do, although there is a difference in the political environment. Originalism is different at interpreting advice and consent, then how a pragmatist would do it because pragmatists look at it context to today, but they look at how it would be applied to in reality and how it would